Rand Paul filibusters the drones.

1. 61

   Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago

   Despite what you may think Rand Paul was speaking out against the drone program.
   After having heard so much dismay and grief from the left about this program and how much they disagreed with it I can only wonder why some of the Democrats did not join him?
   
   Or is the word bipartisan just a tool to you?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Because allying yourself with Rand Paul, even on those rare occasions when he's correct about something, is still painting a giant "I'm a lunatic!" sign on your back.
      
      They'll probably be subtle and unseen about their alliance with him.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But then again, this is the Senate we're talking about...

      replyreport
   3. 71

      Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I usually disagree with Rand Paul, mainly because I think things like a robust public infrastructure, the National Weather Service, NASA, safe drinking water, the National Parks, and the Coast Guard are pretty nifty things.
      
      But on this issue, he's dead right.

      replyreport
2. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   I stand with Rand . . .  on this particular issue.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Rand Paul did what needed to be done to call attention to this violation of our Constitution.  Had it been ignored, it would no doubt be accepted policy by the end of the week.  There should have been more than one person protesting this and my hat is off to Rand Paul.

      replyreport
3. 61

   Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago

   I wonder what circumstances Eric Holder has in mind when he says they can use drones against Americans on American soil?
   
   
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -soil.html
   
   ?

   replyreport
4. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   Rand Paul is only interested in Rand Paul and running for President.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think you will find some Democrats on his side on this one.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sure there are, but they don't make it all about themselves.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You don't think he should have spoken up?
            Just because he's a Republican?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Somebody had to speak up and apparently Rand Paul was the only one there that had guts enough to do it.  The rest were all afraid they might lose a vote or two if they stood up for the Constitution.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Flippin John McCain comes out this morning and tries to apologize for him doing that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I didn't see that.  It seems it is time for John McCain to hang up his spurs and retire?  But it will be up to us to force him into reitrement at the next election.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
                        See all I hear is GOP. Those guys are the GOP and why these liberals have a problem with them I have no idea. They last night did what I have been saying for years and went out and had a steak with Barack Obama and of course today they are defending him.
                        There is no difference in the mainstream of the two parties. None whatsoever.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           I wonder if the tax payers had to pay for their steaks?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Oh you can rest assured they did...............
                              Basically there were a handful of people yesterday that would stand up for the people and they are being pilloried today by their own party.

                              replyreport
5. 61

   Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Eric Holder's two-sentence letter responding to Rand Paul's 13-hour filibuster.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Which he had to do because of this:
         
         
         http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -soil.html
         
         And I don't believe a word he says.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, facts. We don't pay any attention to those when they conflict with our narrative. We prefer the cognitive dissonance.

            replyreport
   2. 67

      PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A picture is worth a 1000 words. This reminds me of the socialist communist picture that says-
      
      I support Socialist policies, so I'll volunteer to pay extra taxes just to help out" -
      
      
      said no socialist, EVER.

      replyreport
6. 61

   Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, where were you when Bush was illegally wiretapping our phones?
      
      Unless you were protesting then, too, you're guilty of exactly that kind of hypocrisy.

      replyreport
7. 60

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   Not that it matters, but why didn't Paul do the same thing when President Bush was President? Just curious why it's such a big deal now?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The drone program wasn't in place to be utilized over here then was it?
      No.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "why didn't Paul do the same thing when President Bush was President?"
      
      [set sarcasm="on"]Because questioning W's use of warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and other unconstitutional overreaches was unpatriotic and unamerican.  Silly. It's only patriotic to point out these kinds of things when Democrats do them. [Set sarcasm="off"]

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Jeff, are you saying you would be in favor of this proposal?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What proposal? Is there a proposal that we've been discussing?
            
            I thought we were talking about whether it was okay for the Executive Branch to kill Americans without a trial on American soil. I think it's not okay. And so does Eric Holder, apparently, according to his letter.
            
            So what's the proposal?

            replyreport
            1. 56

               Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               This is the same administratin that advocated removing suspected terrorists from Guantanamo Bay so they could have a trial in New York.  I guess you only have rights if you are not American now.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Apparently you didn't see the Attorney General's assertion that the executive branch doesn't have the right to kill an American not engaged in combat on US soil?
                  
                  You know, in the letter from the A.G. to Rand Paul that Pretty Panther posted above?
                  
                  But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your knee-jerk Obama-bashing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I am certain he dictated the letter because his arms were sore from all the twisting required to get the Attorney General to assert that which has been commonly accepted since the days of the founding.  Hard to put down the knife once you are mesmerized by the shiny blade, I suppose.

                     replyreport
                  2. 56

                     Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Jeff Berndt,
                     
                     No, I did see it, though it took an act of Congress to get a straight answer from him.  If an American is not on American soil, he/she can be killed.
                     
                     This isn't knee-jerl Obama bashing.  I have been opposed to this kind of abuse of government power since Bush's Patriot Act.  Don't have a knee-jerk emotional moment about protecting Obama.  This isn't about Comrade Obama as much as it is about an abuse of power from the executive branch, be it a republican or a democrat.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        "....though it took an act of Congress to get a straight answer from him."
                        Wait, what? You mean congress passed a resolution on this subject? Because that's what "an act of Congress" is.
                        
                        "I have been opposed to this kind of abuse of government power since Bush's Patriot Act."
                        Good for you; you're a rarity!
                        
                        "This isn't about Comrade Obama..."
                        Oh, of course.

                        replyreport
                        1. 56

                           Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           It's figurative language, not literal.
                           
                           I know it's hard for some people not to play politics, but this one truly is about freedom.  NO president should have the powers granted within the Patriot Act.  No president should have the authority to run drone missions on his own people.  This reminds me of the Chinese running tanks in Tiananmen Square.

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              "NO president should have the powers granted within the Patriot Act. "
                              On that we agree, at least.
                              
                              "No president should have the authority to run drone missions on his own people."
                              No president should have the authority to kill US citizens without a trial, whether with a drone or with a pocketknife.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 So where is your condemnation of Obama?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 71

                                    Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    When did he use a drone to kill A US citizen on US soil, who wasn't actively bearing arms against the USA, without a trial? When did he claim the authority to do so? He didn't, and never. As much as you want him to be a tyrant, the word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
                                    
                                    The Patriot Act was there when he took office. He hasn't dismantled it, and I'm still waiting. But given that there are two wars (one of which the last guy started for no good reason) he's bringing to an end, an economy that he's trying to fix (and which is improving, in spite of the efforts of the GOP to keep it in the toilet), a healthcare system that he has improved (again, no thanks tot he GOP), and several other promises he's kept and is working on.
                                    
                                    I want the bad bits of the Patriot Act gone, too, and I'm looking forward to the day they're repealed. But I'm also not going to throw a tantrum just because I don't get every darn thing I want every darn time I want it.
                                    
                                    Obama isn't perfect, but he's doing well. I'd give him a solid B-.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       If you think he's ending any wars anywhere you need to stop drinking or whatever it is that is giving you such delusions.,
                                       The man is not now nor is he ever going to do anything. You made a reference somewhere to health care which is hilarious as he wrote not one word of it and could not really defend it when put to the test by Paul Ryan. He just got mad that Ryan brought the bill to the table so everyone could see what a piece of constipation it is.

                                       report
                           2. 61

                              Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Well then why didn't he get rid of the Patriot Act?
                              Why didn't he close Gitmo?
                              
                              Why?  He wasn't ever going to. Ever . He lied to get elected. He's a politician. They lie five times before breakfast.
                              So stop defending him when he lies and you K N O W that he's lying.

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Well then why didn't he get rid of the Patriot Act?
                                 Why didn't he close Gitmo?
                                 You may remember that when Obama first moved to bring Gitmo detainees to US soil and close the detention center, congress freaked out all over the place and passed a law that forbade bringing Gitmo detainees to the US for trial. So the choices were 1) keep them in Gitmo or 2) release them into the world.
                                 
                                 Why didn't he get rid of the Patriot Act? Well, for one thing, he can't do that--see, the executive branch can neither repeal laws nor can it rule them unconstitutional. Only Congress can make or repeal a law, and only the courts can rule a law unconstitutional. (Were you absent the day they taught civics at your school?)
                                 
                                 Granted, he really should have been more active in trying to get congress to undo the Patriot Act, and believe it or not, I've complained about this to the President, to my Senators, and to my Congressman.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Obviously you were absent the day they jumped up and down and cheered because not only was Barack Obama elected but the Democrats won both houses with a super majority. Once again it has to be pointed out they could have done anything they pleased, no one could have prevented them and yet they did nothing. That's a lack of leadership plain and simple.
                                    The prisoners at Gitmo were deemed enemy combatants and that's what they are and the absurdity of trying them in a civilian court is staggering.
                                    
                                    They did nothing about Gitmo because....amazingly...there are some bad bad men down there. I know you don't believe that but it's true.
                                    The Patriot Act may be another subject but it has been not just not done away with but UPHELD by this administration.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 71

                                       Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Obviously you were absent the day...the Democrats won both houses with a super majority.
                                       No, nobody was absent on that day, because that day never bloody happened.
                                       
                                       In the House, the dems did have a majority, but they had 255 out of 433 seats, which is neither 2/3rds nor 3/5ths (unless you're thinking of some other definition of "supermajority" that nobody else uses).
                                       
                                       In the Senate, there was a filibuster-proof Dem majority for a short time, but not until July, when Al Franken was finally sworn in after 8 months of delays. Then, six weeks later, Ted Kennedy passed away, ending the filibuster-proof majority (by the way, congress was on Summer Recess for part of those six weeks, too).
                                       
                                       I'm not surprised you're repeating the falsehood of a Democratic supermajority in the first two years of Obama's administration, because pundits (on both sides) kept repeating it for a long time. Heck, I believed it myself for a bit until I actually did the math. But it just ain't true.
                                       
                                       What was Obama doing at that time? Fixing our healthcare system, which took the exact opposite of a "lack of leadership," given the unreasoning (and falsehood-ridden) resistance from the other side of the aisle.
                                       
                                       Would I have preferred that he closed Gitmo as well? Absolutely! Do I understand that in reality-land, pretty much everybody in Congress said "Not in my district you don't!" and "used [their] spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North."
                                       
                                       there are some bad bad men down there.
                                       Yeah? And there are some unlucky saps down there, too. I know you don't give a darn about that, but it's true:
                                       "The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable enough to help resettle them or if a foreign country could safely give them a new start."
                                       Quotes from here.
                                       
                                       Use real facts when arguing, please.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Why bother....you don't believe them.

                                          report
                                          1. 71

                                             Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             Why bother....you don't believe them.
                                             
                                             What? When you post a real fact, I do believe it. Perhaps you're choosing to ignore my comment in the other thread? The one that says:
                                             
                                             Well, I stand corrected*: apparently several protesters did call for the assassination of W during his administration.
                                             
                                             And you know what? Any call for the death of a public official is equally bad. Anyone who carried such a sign should be ashamed.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             *See, here's where, if I didn't care about facts, I'd do some kind of rationalization or other rhetorical judo claiming the photos are doctored or taken out of context or whatever the Right does to make the Tea-Party signs okay. But I'm intellectually honest. So bad on anyone who called for W's assassination, cos apparently there were a lot of them.
                                             
                                             So who's the one who refuses to believe real facts?

                                             report
                                             1. 61

                                                Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                What you don't see, and likely don't care is...
                                                Did you ever see and hear anything about those signs before I showed them too you?
                                                No you didn't. Why?
                                                Because the press could care less about who was threatening Bush...they agreed with it.
                                                However we are really quick to try and find any sign anyone is speaking harm to this president. It's illegal to threaten ANY President whether you like him or not.

                                                report
                                                1. 71

                                                   Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   What you don't see, and likely don't care is...
                                                   Did you ever see and hear anything about those signs before I showed them too you?
                                                   No you didn't. Why?
                                                   Because the press could care less about who was threatening Bush...they agreed with it.
                                                   Yeah, it's interesting how none of the major networks--CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX--showed any images of protestors calling for W's assassination. You'd have thought that at least FOX would have been showing those images every chance they got. Serious question.
                                                   
                                                   If "the liberal media" wasn't reporting on anti-war protestors calling for W's death, their motivation may have been to try to make the anti-war protestors seem more respectable. That's understandable, if not excusable.
                                                   
                                                   But what possible motive would FOX have to suppress that story? Why would they not want to make the anti-war protesters look like a bunch of loons? I'm genuinely puzzled about this. It's not because FOX is liberally biased, that's for sure....
                                                   
                                                   However we are really quick to try and find any sign anyone is speaking harm to this president.
                                                   That's true. It's also true that, according to the Secret Service, (and in spite of reports to the contrary) there have been about the same number of credible threats against Obama as against the last two presidents.
                                                   
                                                   It's illegal to threaten ANY President whether you like him or not.
                                                   Agreed: no good can come of threatening to assassinate, or encouraging others to assassinate, any public official.

                                                   report
                                                2. 0

                                                   PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Just stepping in here to say that I saw those signs as they were happening and was aware of death threats for W.  I also saw photos of W being burned and hanged in effigy.  I'm not sure why Jeff wasn't aware of them while I was.  However, I will say that the major news organizations did seem reluctant to air any anti-war sentiments, and I believe the use of most of those signs probably occurred during protests against the war.  I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and paid close attention to any news about anti-war protests, which seemed to be reported almost exclusively on blogs and websites, but not the major news outlets, so perhaps that is why I had seen them.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 61

                                                      Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Yes, I don't doubt that's why and I applaud you for paying attention.
                                                      Folks can say what they will but there can be little doubt there is a one-sided press.

                                                      report
                  3. 67

                     PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You seem to be actually equating foreign terrorists, foreign countries that had terrorists, Saddam Hussein, the very soon after 911 attack time frame, with TODAY, Americans and American Soil and claiming they are comparatively the same.
                     
                     Further, you are using a tu quoque fallacy, suggesting a claim that other people are hypocrites for things Bush did, which by default you also disagree with, yet when Obama does it and in an increasing amount, as far as drone attacks, talk of using drones over American soil, continued war in Afghanistan and extensions of the Patriot Act- you consider this "obama bashing"?

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You seem to be actually equating foreign terrorists, foreign countries that had terrorists, Saddam Hussein, the very soon after 911 attack time frame, with TODAY, Americans and American Soil and claiming they are comparatively the same.
                        What? Seriously, whose posts are you reading? 'Cos if you're referring to mine, your comprehension skills are in the toilet.
                        
                        yet when Obama does it and in an increasing amount, as far as drone attacks, talk of using drones over American soil,
                        You can go ahead and ignore the A.G.'s very clear assertion that the executive branch does not have the authority to kill US citizens on US soil without due process, but other people, who pay attention to reality, will see that your argument is founded on air.
                        
                        continued war in Afghanistan
                        I've already addressed this argument: we were there before Obama took over, and to suddenly withdraw would be grossly irresponsible. You do remember that we supported the Afghans against the USSR, right? And you do remember that the Mujahideen(sp?) evolved into the Taliban after the USSR pulled out and we bailed on them, right? Do you seriously think it'd be a good idea to withdraw from Afghanistan right away, right now? If you do, then....
                        
                        extensions of the Patriot Act-
                        That's the only legitimate complaint you've listed.
                        
                        you consider this "obama bashing"?
                        Yes, because you listed one real thing among a bunch of stuff from fantasy-land. Or, if you genuinely think that an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq would be a good idea, well....again,

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           "why didn't Paul do the same thing when President Bush was President?"
                           You wrote-
                           [set sarcasm="on"]Because questioning W's use of warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and other unconstitutional overreaches was unpatriotic and unamerican.  Silly. It's only patriotic to point out these kinds of things when Democrats do them. [Set sarcasm="off"]
                           
                           
                           Of course Rand Paul was not in position at that time, but you offer "torture, detention etc" - The detention of people that are being considered as possible combatants of whom some when released went on to do suicide bombings, make videos for al queda, etc etc etc. at a time shortly after the 911 attacks and around the time of being at war with Iraq.
                           
                           Above you are obviously equating the two. The difference is the time - place- and people.  TODAY is not right after 911.  American citizens are not suspected terrorists during a war.  You imply that the overreaches are comparable.
                           
                           Now, As far as ignoring the Attorney General, redundant claim after a 13 hour filibuster? A 13 hour filibuster? And we get a note from the Attorney General?  A 13 hour filibuster?  Thank goodness Mr Paul was not pulling obamas tooth or the attorneys generals tooth and it took 13 hours.
                           
                           
                           
                           Its not unpatriotic or unamerican to take extreme measures during times like 9/11 or during an active war. But we are not talking about then. We are not talking about potential foreign combatants. Extreme measure at extreme times are understandable.
                           
                           But when politicians try to circumvent the People and Constitution - specifically regarding THE PEOPLE and America itself, Its completely Patriotic and American to say no further.
                           
                           Americans live in a Republic and a Democracy. Attorney Generals and Presidents dont call the shots. WE THE PEOPLE do. Backed up by the Constitution of the United States. Not the other way around.

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Its not unpatriotic or unamerican to take extreme measures during times like 9/11 or during an active war.
                              Yes. Yes it is.
                              
                              Extreme measure at extreme times are understandable.
                              Understandable? Perhaps. Legal? Ethical? Moral? Excusable? None of the above. Just like the recent DAA, which allows for indefinite detention, is inexcusable. (I bothered a lot of officials about that one, too, by the way.) So far, we don't know of any incident where this authority has been invoked, and I'm confident that it'll be struck down, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be the test case.
                              
                              We are not talking about potential foreign combatants.
                              We're not even talking about potential drone strikes on US soil. Heck, Obama's administration never asserted the right to do a drone strike on US soil; that nonsense came from his opponents. Rand Paul did his filibuster, and the AG says, Oh, now you want to know if we think it's okay to drone-bomb a US citizen, on US soil, who isn't engaged in combat against the US? "The answer to that question is no."
                              
                              But that's not good enough, I guess. What would satisfy you on this drone issue?
                              
                              Really, if Obama's really this power-mad dictator, you should fight the real power grabs (like the NDAA) rather than the distractions.

                              replyreport
   3. 67

      PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      1. Because Paul was sworn in on January 5, 2011.
      
      2 Drones being used over American Soil is a big deal

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed.  You could write a novel talking about the government listening to your calls, scanning your emails, watching you from the sky, and putting Americans on a kill list.  Thirty years ago, people would have called that novel science fiction.  Now, it would be nonfiction.  This is the new America; it's one where our personal freedoms are eroding, and  our privacy is nonexistent.  Where is the ACLU on this one?

         replyreport